unfounded work alligations, my rights?

967stuart

I wouldn't send a photo.
I'd post them a turd instead.

DandelionPatrol

Flyonthewall wrote: »

If it happened again I'd go for a more direct approach, not send a letter with a photo. Regardless of how many times it happens the letter still sounds like they're making fun of it all. [1]

The school could arrange a meeting between the two to discuss it. That way the matter can be resolved quickly, calmly, professionally and both parties can have their say. [2]

1. What is wrong with making fun of it. Far better to do that than to appear downtrodden by it.
2. If I were OP, I would not want to grace the person causing all this with the satisfaction of having a meeting. Assuming that this is some form of bullying, handling this at a distance is best

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

1. What is wrong with making fun of it. Far better to do that than to appear downtrodden by it.
2. If I were OP, I would not want to grace the person causing all this with the satisfaction of having a meeting. Assuming that this is some form of bullying, handling this at a distance is best

Making fun of another member of staff by implying they're too stupid to get a name right and need to be given a photo and be told the name does not look good. The school are more likely to have a serious word with the OP about proper procedures and being professional than they are to show the photo to the other member of staff.

The OP has a serious concern and they should be raising that concern properly, not giving a photo and demanding it be shown to someone.

Three of us are saying that the photo with that letter is a bad idea. Only you think it is a good idea. That strongly suggests that the photo is far more likely to be taken the wrong way than be any help in resolving concerns.

You're making assumptions that the other person is trying to bully them somehow and there is nothing to suggest that this is the case at all. As already said, there are many reasons why they may have got the wrong name (even twice). For a start, some people are just really really bad with names.

A meeting allows you to see exactly what this person has to say, how they react and give their side to the story. For all you know they may hear the situation, realise how it has affected the OP and keep apologising for the mistake and feel truly guilty for putting them through that. It would be sorted there and then and you can personally see the outcome.

Without that you're waiting for the school to act on it and you only have the schools word on what was said.

DandelionPatrol

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Making fun of another member of staff by implying they're too stupid to get a name right and need to be given a photo and be told the name does not look good. [1] The school are more likely to have a serious word with the OP about proper procedures and being professional than they are to show the photo to the other member of staff.

The OP has a serious concern and they should be raising that concern properly, not giving a photo and demanding it be shown to someone.

Three of us are saying that the photo with that letter is a bad idea. Only you think it is a good idea.That strongly suggests that the photo is far more likely to be taken the wrong way than be any help in resolving concerns. [2]

You're making assumptions that the other person is trying to bully them somehow and there is nothing to suggest that this is the case at all. [3] As already said, there are many reasons why they may have got the wrong name (even twice). For a start, some people are just really really bad with names.

A meeting allows you to see exactly what this person has to say, how they react and give their side to the story. For all you know they may hear the situation, realise how it has affected the OP and keep apologising for the mistake and feel truly guilty for putting them through that. [4] It would be sorted there and then and you can personally see the outcome.

Without that you're waiting for the school to act on it and you only have the schools word on what was said.

You are wrong about my position on this on so many levels.

1. Although the idea is amusing, it is not making fun of the member of staff. Either they are doing this maliciously, in which case it does not matter, or it is an honest mistake and an honest straightforward letter to the school is as good a a way as any of putting it right.
2. The evidence of this thread is that 4 people like the idea. If we must count heads.
3. I have not assumed that it is bullying. I am however considering that it is a possibility. If it is not bullying, I would expect the person involved to be mortified and the letter to be taken as a serious concern being addressed assertively. [In characterising my letter as being taken as cheeky, I think there is probably an implicit assumption that it is bullying ...]
4. If it is not bullying and the person involved is mortified, I would expect them to be making contact to sort out a meeting. In which case all well and good. If it is bullying, then there is no point in having a meeting.

This issue has gone far enough that it should not be allowed to continue. Something is required to close this matter off and make it impossible for this person to make the same mistake again. If it is bullying, then the last thing which is required is a letter of the sort which you think is better. A robust, rumbustious response is required, which does not suggest that OP has been damaged by this.

DandelionPatrol

967stuart wrote: »

I wouldn't send a photo.
I'd post them a turd instead.

Oh dear, another one with flyonthwall and the others who do not like my letter.

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

You are wrong about my position on this on so many levels.

Although the idea is amusing, it is not making fun of the member of staff. Either they are doing this maliciously, in which case it does not matter, or it is an honest mistake and an honest straightforward letter to the school is as good a a way as any of putting it right.

It could be seen that way, which is the point.

The evidence of this thread is that 4 people like the idea. If we must count heads.

How do you work that out?

4, 5 if you include a thanks on my last post which I assume means they agree with my post, have said the letter is not a good idea. No one has said it's a good idea. As a serious suggestion, no one has said they like the idea.

4 thanks on the post could be for a number of reasons. The idea of a letter, assuming it's not serious etc.

I have not assumed that it is bullying. I am however considering that it is a possibility. If it is not bullying, I would expect the person involved to be mortified and the letter to be taken as a serious concern being addressed assertively. [In characterising my letter as being taken as cheeky, I think there is probably an implicit assumption that it is bullying ...]

If it is not bullying and the person involved is mortified, I would expect them to be making contact to sort out a meeting. In which case all well and good. If it is bullying, then there is no point in having a meeting.This issue has gone far enough that it should not be allowed to continue.

To be taken as a serious concern the letter should be serious with no doubt or possibility of it being taken otherwise. Your letter does not come across as serious.

If it is bullying then it all depends on why, after 18 years, they've suddenly started being a bully. A meeting may still be a good idea if it's due to reasons that could be resolved through communicating directly as it could be from a misunderstanding or something.

Something is required to close this matter off and make it impossible for this person to make the same mistake again. If it is bullying, then the last thing which is required is a letter of the sort which you think is better. A robust, rumbustious response is required, which does not suggest that OP has been damaged by this.

Well OP could just move on, put it down to a genuine mistake and move on. Otherwise, that would be a different letter without a photo, but depending on the reason it happened depends on whether it can be made impossible for the same mistake again.

If it is bullying then just two incidents in 8 months after 18 years seems a bit odd.

DandelionPatrol

Flyonthewall wrote: »

If you feel stressed and confused then half an hour, along with added worry after, is a long time. Not everyone deals well with such situations.

Agreed. But I would not want to admit this to someone who is potentially a bully.

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I'd much rather admit that the half an hour interview had been really stressful for me than come across as an idiot wanting to have my photo shown to someone.

Given that the same mistake has happened twice, it is not idiotic. The idiotic thing is not to grasp the nettle firmly enough to prevent this happening again.

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I would not expect them to pass on the letter. It raises a personal concern that should not be directly shown to the other member of staff. The health of another member of staff is not for them to know.

No, I would not expect them to pass on stevelMS's letter, but as they are not OP's employer, there is no control over whether this would happen. Which is why I am minded that it is better to send a letter which you would be very happy for the school employee to see in full.

Flyonthewall wrote: »

... Instead the school should take on board what the letter says and find out the reason for the mistake and make sure the person realises their mistake.

As OP and the school employee do not work for the same employer, you can't expect the school to deal with their employee in any particular way with respect to past events. But my proposed letter does leave a fairly strong indicator to the school to avoid future incidents.

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Agreed. But I would not want to admit this to someone who is potentially a bully.

You wouldn't be. You'd be admitting it in a letter to the school which is private and therefore would never be seen by the other member of staff.

Given that the same mistake has happened twice, it is not idiotic. The idiotic thing is not to grasp the nettle firmly enough to prevent this happening again.

It's not idiotic to wonder why they said it twice, it's idiotic to send that letter with a photo as it can easily come across the wrong way.

No, I would not expect them to pass on stevelMS's letter, but as they are not OP's employer, there is no control over whether this would happen. Which is why I am minded that it is better to send a letter which you would be very happy for the school employee to see in full.

Course they have control. The letter is addressed to them and clearly personal. They may not be OP employers, but they still have to follow laws. The data protection act should cover it. They can't just go passing private letters around.

As OP and the school employee do not work for the same employer, you can't expect the school to deal with their employee in any particular way with respect to past events. But my proposed letter does leave a fairly strong indicator to the school to avoid future incidents.

The other letter suggests steps be taken to avoid future incidents and isn't likely to be taken the wrong way.

DandelionPatrol

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Course they have control. The letter is addressed to them and clearly personal. They may not be OP employers, but they still have to follow laws. The data protection act should cover it. They can't just go passing private letters around.

That it just too naive. DPA might cover it, but if it is breached, you could never prove it and you would just be bogged down in a situation which had handed the power over to the [potential] bully.

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

That it just too naive. DPA might cover it, but if it is breached, you could never prove it and you would just be bogged down in a situation which had handed the power over to the [potential] bully.

You can't possibly know that. Might be hard, but doesn't mean it's impossible. Hopefully the school wouldn't be stupid enough to pass it on anyway. So far it seems they're following the procedures and all considering they interviewed the OP despite knowing for sure it wasn't them.

Also, if they're not a bully then no power is being handed to them.